NRC anticipates flood of license applications for new reactors

[DoctorDoom]

CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. - Federal regulators, girding for explosive growth in the nuclear power industry, say they are weeks away from an anticipated flood of license applications for new reactors not seen since the 1970s.

"There are a lot of challenges for new construction," said Bill Borchardt, director of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's newly created Office of New Reactors. "And a lot of challenges for the NRC."

The independent regulatory agency expects to receive new fast-tracked combined construction and operating license applications for as many as 29 reactors at 20 sites, most in the South, over the next three years.NRC anticipates flood of license applications for new reactors (http://www.mercurynews.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?articleId=6827339&siteId=568)

It's about bloody damned time! Of course the no-nukes know-nothings will be out in force with their scientifically illiterate tales of gloom and doom and America being unlivable for 25,000 years if a reactor has a problem.

Fast-tracking includes telling the wackjobs to STFU.

[Lazarus]

Hey Doc, if we can double the number of reactors, ya think we could take out those plans for the Hydrogen Fuel Cell cars?

[DoctorDoom]

Yep. Hydrogen is easily generated by nuke operations.

[cerberus]

Good! Finally. Although I won't be holding my breath just yet. The NIMBY effect will mean anytime they try to build a plant the locals will hear the word "nuclear" (or is it 'nuc-u-lar'?) and raise the biggest stink, delaying construction for years...

[buzzthepug!]

Yes! Finally people are listening to Dr. Wattenberg about the necessity of nuclear energy.

Take that, Al Gore, you disgusting pig from hell!

[DoctorDoom]

The moral dilemma of ecowackos:

For more than 100 years, visionaries have periodically espoused the dream of an economy driven by hydrogen - an efficient fuel that emits only water when burned. Today, their vision may be on the verge of reality: Energy policymakers around the world are increasingly recognizing the potential of hydrogen as a fuel for transportation, which accounts for more than one third of the nation's annual energy consumption.

One key problem that must be solved first is to develop a source and distribution system for the massive amount of new hydrogen that will be needed. A number of new and existing technologies are under study, but one strong candidate for providing hydrogen in future decades is nuclear energy.

[snip]

Ultimately, nuclear power could become the vital link in the energy supply chain. This vision has emerged as one element in the U.S. Department of Energy's Generation-IV Nuclear deliberations. In collaboration with 10 other nations, the Generation-IV program is developing an international consensus on research and development for the next phase of nuclear energy. Nuclear power is no longer viewed as solely a source of electricity.

"Future advanced reactors can provide heat for manufacturing hydrogen," said Argonne nuclear engineer David Wade. "Nuclear energy is the only way we know to generate large amounts of heat without burning large amounts of fossil fuel. But today's nuclear power plants don't produce enough heat."Nuclear plants may be clean hydrogen source (http://www.eurekalert.org/features/doe/2004-06/dnl-npm061404.php)

[TheIrishman]

In cars, for instance, storing the hydrogen is a main safety problem. I think it was 1/2", maybe 3/4", steel needed for the tank which would add considerable weight.

[DoctorDoom]

From an earlier post ...


The range of hydrogen-powered vehicles is extremely unlikely to be equivalent to that of a comparable gasoline-fueled vehicle. The nature of the fuel is the major issue.

First, a couple of factoids: hydrogen as a fuel has 2.6 times the energy content of an equivalent mass of gasoline, e.g., kilogram for kilogram. However, liquid hydrogen requires 4 times the volume of gasoline for an equal energy content.

E.g., the gasoline in a 15-gallon tank weighs about 90 pounds. Liquid hydrogen with the same energy content weighs 34 pounds, but requires a 60-gallon tank to hold it. For that reason alone, it's hard to envision it in small vehicles. There's more on liquid hydrogen below.

<hr>
Gasoline requires nothing other than a safe tank to hold it and a pump to get it to the engine. It stores at atmospheric pressure and ambient temperature. Hydrogen, being a gas, cannot simply be pumped into a tank and used.

There are several ways to store hydrogen. The first and simplest way is by compressing it into high-pressure tanks. This has several drawbacks. First, it requires the expenditure of considerable energy to run the compressor. Second, the highest practical pressure in a hydrogen tank is about 6000 PSI (equivalent to water pressure at a depth of 13,820 feet). Envision a 6000-psi tank rupturing due to material fatigue and failure. The explosion of the tank itself would quite likely blow the car apart, but since that would generate at least one or two sparks, there would also be a quite impressive fireball. For that reason, frequent inspections of the tanks are required. How many consumers would be willing to put up with that constant, costly necessity?

IAC, compressed hydrogen will never be practical in cars. A compressed hydrogen gas tank that contained energy equivalent to a gasoline tank would be more than 3,000 times bigger than the gasoline tank. Imagine replacing a Yugo's 9-gallon tank with a 27,000-gallon tank.

Obviously, compressed hydrogen is useless for transportation.

<hr>
The only other practical storage technology at present is liquid hydrogen. While the figures at the top are far less daunting than those of compressed gas, LH has its own problems. First, it must be stored at 20° Kelvin or -253°C (-424°F). That's 20°C or 36°F above absolute zero, almost as cold as a New England winter night. To store it in liquid form requires a tank that insulates the liquid and can retain its structural integrity at nearly absolute zero. Such tanks are of course available, but converting the technology for use in a car would be impractical.

First, the tank and its associated equipment would be quite heavy and, as seen earlier, 4 times as large as a gasoline tank for the same energy content.

Second, in the event of an accident that ruptures the tank, there will be a spray of lethally cold liquid. It would also pose the likelihood of an explosion much larger than the blast of a compressed gas tank, because the amount of hydrogen would be far greater.

Third, the fueling process would be far more complicated, inasmuch as transferring a high-pressure, super-cold liquid requires much more than shoving a nozzle into a filler pipe.

Fourth, the fueling stations would require expensive, energy-consuming compressors and refrigeration to maintain their stores of LH.

Fifth, the process of liquifying hydrogen uses energy equivalent to 30% of the energy content of the gas.

Sixth, the infrastructure that must be built to enable a large-scale hydrogen-based transportation system is so formidable that is unlikely to be attempted.

This page provides basic info on the various means of hydrogen storage. Part of the above data comes from it.

INFO - Hydrogen - Hydrogen Storage (http://www.fuelcellstore.com/cgi-bin/fuelweb/view=NavPage/cat=1014)

Lastly, regardless of the method for storing it, hydrogen itself is not an energy source, but an energy transfer medium. It is not found free in nature. It must be generated by extracting it from compounds, and the process, by the laws of physics, always requires more energy than can be provided by the hydrogen. Thus, the use of hydrogen fuel is a net energy loss.

Envision the price of gasoline, diesel fuel, heating oil, etcetera, if refineries had to use more energy to make them than the petroleum could provide. This is one (if not THE) major impediment to a hydrogen-based economy.

[Lazarus]

Looks like it needs a little work... But the possibility of this being a viable source, especially if nuclear power becomes more available to generate the Hydrogen gas, that will become the motivation for the research needed to develope safe, efficient ways to handle the gas... Just as the space program has been the catalyst for research into many support sciences...

BTW, for those who are not entirely familiar with the concept of Hydrogen gas as an energy source..... Hydrogen gas is not used in an internal combustion system like gasoline - the comparisons to gasoline can only be made for economic purposes... Hydrogen gas is used as a catalyst in a fuel cell battery that generated a DC charge that powers an electric motor...

IOW, the Hydrogen Fuel Cell in an automotive application is an Electric car... The facts that Doc quoted above are indeed concerns and the negatives that we must overcome... But there are a number of advantages with Hydrogen Fuel Cells in their application that were not addressed...

Firstly is the environmental advantage - the exhaust from a Hydrogen Fuel Cell motor is simple water vapor... Also, as Doc said above, Hydrogen gas isnt an actual source of energy - its an energy transfer medium... Energy generated by another energy source, ie Nuclear, is stored as potential energy in Hydrogen gas... In this senario, both Nuclear energy and the transfer medium, Hydrogen, are virtually unlimited in supply... So we eliminate the exploration costs... There are other mechanical advantages associated with electric motors...

There is a lot of work that still needs to be done to make this arrangement viable, but with the advent of more nuclear power sources, we may now see more research dedicated to developing this idea... If the economic disadvantages can be overcome, all the other issues will be dealt with...

I don't see Fuel Cells completely replacing internal combustion - well at least not in our lifetimes - but it could replace SOME applications of internal combustion, and some fuel cell applications are already poised to enhance existing technologies that are dependant on portable energy sources... Fuel Cells might end up being one of those base technologies, like the silicon chip, that will greatly enhance other existing applications...

Here is a site that might be of interest to some on this subject...

http://www.ultracellpower.com/

[DoctorDoom]

I don't see hydrogen as a significant player in the private transportation sector in any case. It just can't be made practical for personal use.

However, public transportation, trucks et al certainly could use it as a fuel, inasmuch as they're larger and bulkier than cars. The hydrogen equipment would be a smaller percentage of the total mass and there is more room for it.

[ardentconservative]

Yep. Hydrogen is easily generated by nuke operations.


Hey Doc, this is new to me, could you provide some detail.:question::question:

Never mind Doc, I found your later post.